• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Impact of regulations on sled design and performance??

S
Mar 6, 2008
510
346
63
Northern Sweden
Not sled specific but I would realy like to know, how much of a problem is the governmental regulations to sled OEMs?

How much better/more reliable/better on fuel would a sled be if the OEMs could do whatever they wanted?

Oh, and by the way. How much use is the exhaust ports for bumping performance? Or are they used mainly for other purposes, like killing noise?
 
Last edited:
J

Jaynelson

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
5,005
5,542
113
Nelson BC
They don't have much for emissions equipment per say ....so I don't think you're giving anything up in fuel economy.

I think with the ability to run richer oil /fuel mixtures ...you may see a small increase in power and reliability. But with modern EFI sleds, they really seem to be able to hit a nice balance.

You gain a little weight with the large muffler to keep within noise regs, and other sound deadening measures such as foam.

Guessing the biggest hold up is trying to keep costs reasonable .... otherwise they could throw more exotic materials around, better suspension components, and develop new engines more frequently
 

Griff

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
658
162
43
I believe the impact is substantial. Complying with regulations diverts resources away from developing a product for the market. Instead R&D investments are made in the required areas. Compound this over a period of years and compliance with various jurisdictions and the consumer loses.
 

Sheetmetalfab

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 5, 2010
7,911
6,672
113
……..
I believe the impact is substantial. Complying with regulations diverts resources away from developing a product for the market. Instead R&D investments are made in the required areas. Compound this over a period of years and compliance with various jurisdictions and the consumer loses.

If nothing else the consumer pays more for the same machine.
 
S
Mar 6, 2008
510
346
63
Northern Sweden
I see someone lifted this out of the " Sit down and speak to the engineers"-thread.

I'm in engineering but work with forestry equipment. We have several large OEMs as customers so during the years I have met with R&D personell from John Deere, Komatsu, Ponsse, Rottne and TigerCat just to name a few. I have heard several of them say that machines today burn a lot of fuel to make the emissions limits. I.e, it costs a lot of fuel to reduce emissions. I'm aware of that this is often due to the emissions reducing systems needs hotter exhaust gasses to work properly so they burn extra fuel to heat the exhaust and sled engines doesn't have any of these add on systems.

So, what I would like to know is. Are the sleds today detuned in some way just to pass some made up laboratory test cycle which then reduces real world performance and fuel mileage?
 

goridedoo

Well-known member
Premium Member
Feb 8, 2010
3,868
3,544
113
I have no idea, but it seems like weight from exhaust and intake systems have been the only things really holding these sleds back. I suppose the biggest thing is the regulations cost the manufactures- and us more in the end due to the cost of making them meet these regulations.

Seems like vehicles have become more complex and less reliable as time goes on, doesnt seem that way with sleds, I think they are getting better every year.
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
What's the average hp loss from crank to track?

Seems like more efficient transmission would go a long way. 160hp is pretty damn good. (and yes I know that's sea level where few of us ride but still)

Some better lighter track material would be huge. Lots of power going to spin up that 50lbs or whatever it is. Just thinking outloud.
 
Last edited:
J

JJ_0909

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Nov 16, 2009
1,023
1,033
113
What's the average hp loss from crank to track?

Seems like more efficient transmission would go a long way. 160hp is pretty damn good. (and yes I know that's sea level where few of us ride but still)

Some better lighter track material would be huge. Lots of power going to spin up that 50lbs or whatever it is. Just thinking outloud.

Yeah, off topic but really the "modern" CVT isn't very modern. Lol.

A system where stepper motors, instead of springs, control your shift/backshift would be huge. It'd be controlled by a map, part of the ECU. This would make for a much better riding sled. But the costs of development would be huge.

Anyway, yeah, there are probably a number of places where power is being lost, but the old CVT is likely the biggest one out there.

Probably have an electric mountain sled ready to go by the time the clutching is really addressed
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
since it's all torque I'm picturing the stepper motor clutching being part of the motor development

but yeah belt heat, hyfax heat, ****ty bushing drag on suspension....it's all energy loss


Anybody got an extra million lying around? I know the guys at Alta motors and they've got some free time right now. :face-icon-small-hap
 

snowracer21

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 10, 2012
308
208
43
36
In my opinion, environmental regulations are one of the primary causes of the Ski-Doo 850 belt life issues. The total noise emissions produced by a snowmobile are not solely from the exhaust, but a combination of exhaust, engine noise, CVT system, track rotation, etc.

Snowmobiles (and all other powersports machines) must meet strict sound level regulations. So, how do manufactures meet these regulations while still maintaining a high level of performance? They add sound-deadining materials to the sled...examples include all that foam stuck to the inside of your panels, that stupid plastic heat-trapping shroud around the CVT system on the G4 850, etc.

This brings me to my point: CVT systems are air-cooled, and require ample ventilation to facilitate proper cooling.

Yeah, mis-aligned clutches, or a poor tuning setup will create a lot of clutch heat...but the heat generated by a poor setup is greatly intensified when the clutches are wrapped in a heat-soaking plastic shroud.

So, to wrap it up...an 850 drive belt exploding into a million pieces on the mountain is much more enviro-friendly than a snowmobile that is a few decibles louder than the limits.
 
U
Jul 20, 2016
335
232
43
34
Montana
I don't think regulation is the problem as much as the wrong type of regulation. Case in point is the auto industry. Now I don't know the full story of how we got where we are so I'm going to loosely point out that car manufacturers relied on old motor technology until they were forced to meet efficiency standards. These new standards forced manufacturers to rethink about powerplants and we've seen a good bit of technological improvement. Pretty much across the board, we were able to lose a couple cylinders, add a turbo and increase efficiency. Look at Ecoboost in the F150 or Ford GT. Or, the BMW M5 etc etc. We were all a bit skeptical at first but I think many of us have come around to the new motor designs and just as many probably haven't even noticed.

Now, if manufacturers could be pushed to improve on the snowmobile side of things, we could really see some great advancements. A parallel idea would be a 600cc motor with a factory turbo. Yes, the 600cc will have less power but the upside would be a lighter motor and a motor that doesn't lose power at altitude. I realize not everything is apples to apples (2-stroke vs 4-stroke etc) but I do bounce back and forth on whether or not manufacturers could use a little extra nudge to innovate.
 

Bushwacker1

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2008
297
183
43
Wisconsin
I believe the regulation is like a knife that cuts both ways. There is good and bad from it. Most of it started with the EPA and emissions, (cars and then off road). CJ Ramstead (Race and Rally? and Snow week writer) wrote an article many years before his untimely passing that showed how much fuel the snowmobile market actually burned in a year and it was almost insignificant when compared to the motor vehicles usage. Although every bit of reduction makes a difference our biggest concern then and now is on the motor vehicles we run down the road, due to the miles driven and the gallons burned. I think back to the early 70's when air pumps were installed on car engines. Emission's went down, fuel mileage suffered, and HP decreased. Yet we were forced to accept this and the manufactures were forced to roll up their sleeves and do better. This lead to full closed loop fuel injection and today we have more HP per cubic inch and better millage to go along with it in our cars and trucks. Yes the diesels are now starting down this same road and some of the new systems are not yet where we would like them, but if past history says anything I believe this too will take the same path to more power and better millage in the diesels. Would this evolution have happened if it were not mandated? I would say yes but most likely at a much slower pace.
I remember buying new sleds in the 90's that were jetted for 20 bellow and still several sizes to rich for that temp. Most were afraid to lean down as they trusted the MFG specs and did not want to have issues. Factories were also concerned about warranty issues so there was no incentive to deliver product with spot on tuning besides being the HP king of the pack. In the early 2000's new sleds started to be delivered from the factory with flat slides and compensators and there was a noticeable difference in the performance. The two stroke ding a ding ding (sound and response) was there all the way from idle to wide open and back down to idle. I believe this was the era where MFG were starting to be forced to look after the emissions with tighter ones coming. Fuel injection came next to meet these mandates. As engines make HP in proportion to the amount of air and fuel we can stuff thru them here is where the downfall is. Less fuel equals less emissions equals less power. This is where the engine management systems can make up for the adage of more fuel equals more power. Control it so it gets there when needed and not have a bunch of extra fuel being burned incompletely in the pipe without any benefit to efficiency. Control all aspects of it, exhaust valves, timing, oil injection, injector timing, etc. I believe we have some of the best performing two strokes ever and the MFG have been able to meet the mandated emissions that not so long ago I read article after article about the eventual retirement of the two stroke engine in sleds due to these mandates. Would we be here with the current technology today with out the mandates? I think we would be about half way to this point, mostly because of the additional cost of this evolution that we had no choice but to accept it. I think the consumer would have chosen lower priced technology on this run up and this would have slowed the development of this technology down without the mandates. The price of sleds have risen and I would have been one of those consumers voting for what I want to afford and the MFG would follow what the consumer is willing to pay for. Our sleds are cleaner, has it made a huge impact on our overall air quality problems? Most likely not, as the sled market is such a small contributor to the problem. The cost to EPA an engine is so large that the MFG must limit their engine offerings to single digit numbers for their whole fleet. Hard to offer limited high performance builds, or small demand niche markets in that atmosphere. As originally stated this cuts both ways, but for me I will accept where we are even if I don't like how we got here, and enjoy the newest technology that has made snowmobiling a pull and go sport, that not so long ago required a lot more mechanical aptitude and wrenching than it requires today.
 

Devilmanak

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2007
4,982
2,193
113
52
Donnelly, ID
If this helps, I am building a full Mod factory Cat 2017 SX ZR6000. Sled has few miles, Mod kit has none. Will make about 165 horse. Race sled so no emissions, no regulations from factory. 165 horse out of a 600. This is with no porting or other engine mods other than a head, ecu, pipes.
They could build whatever they want if they were allowed to.
I am really surprised that we are allowed to mod or build anything any more.
My brother has a Ford Lightning, I have a Ford Harley Edition F150. Both supercharged. Same trucks other than I have 4 doors and slightly detuned. I just modded the crap out of mine, my bro can't even put aftermarket heads on his, he is in Cali and I am in Idaho.
 
U
Jul 20, 2016
335
232
43
34
Montana
If you run that race motor the same way most consumers run their motors, it simply won't last. A lot of the reason manufacturers can get more out of less is because they know the motors will be taken care of properly. Sure emissions is part of it but by no means is it all of it.
 
S
Mar 6, 2008
510
346
63
Northern Sweden
I believe the regulation is like a knife that cuts both ways. ..............


You make good points. Yes, if rules and regulations didn't make EFI etc more or less a must then we would probably ride around with round throttle carbed sleds still. An I remember a time when if our group set out on a 100km round trip it was more or less certain that at least one sled got home on a trailer instead of on it's own, so sleds of today are much more reliable.

But what could be done IF the mfg:s were given full freedom using today's tech?

On a side note, something I feel is really stupid, IF I understand it correctly, regarding emission regulations, is the "fleet average" emissions limits. A manufacturer may sell a vehicle that is over the emission limits if they sell another that is as much below.

I think the logical should be "emissions unit/kW" not "emissions unit/number of vehicles sold", this should push the OEMs ever further and put the major pollution bombs out of production regardless if it is a high or low performance unit.
 

mountainhorse

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2005
18,606
11,814
113
West Coast
www.laketahoeconcours.com
Doesn't that ZR have a high comp ratio that requires race gas?


If this helps, I am building a full Mod factory Cat 2017 SX ZR6000. Sled has few miles, Mod kit has none. Will make about 165 horse. Race sled so no emissions, no regulations from factory. 165 horse out of a 600. This is with no porting or other engine mods other than a head, ecu, pipes.
They could build whatever they want if they were allowed to.
I am really surprised that we are allowed to mod or build anything any more.
My brother has a Ford Lightning, I have a Ford Harley Edition F150. Both supercharged. Same trucks other than I have 4 doors and slightly detuned. I just modded the crap out of mine, my bro can't even put aftermarket heads on his, he is in Cali and I am in Idaho.
 
Premium Features